Re: On PATH_MAX

[Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 01:29:21AM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > >>Why shouldn't the thread of execution and scheduling time be provided by 
> > >>the caller, too?

If the server can make guarantees about latency (which is useful anyway, to
say the least), it should be able to tell how much schedule it needs.  Then it
may demand that much from the client, and the client really transfers it, that
is, it isn't gone when the client is destroyed.

The result is that the client can determine beforehand if the price is too
high, and refuse to use the server if it thinks it is.

What it needs is kernel support for such schedule donation.  Also, it needs
support for "reserving" schedule, because a process can execute code (via an
other process) after it is destroyed.  This will need a limit, and I'm not
sure if that solves all problems.  In particular, kill -9 does no longer
guarantee that the client will not perform a single instruction anymore.

Are there any other problems with this approach?  Or is that one big
enough...?

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature